West Kelowna Naming Referendum

[gardengirl]

Hee hee. Whatever this is, I would like the other choice. Been there.

[canadman]

To clarify the reason for answering both questions. In question 1 you are asked if you want change. in question 2 you are asked if the name were to change which would you prefer.

To use the analogy cited earlier. It would be like me asking you "Do you want coffee of something else?". If you were to say coffee, it wouldn't be unreasonable to then ask "and if it turns out we're out of coffee, which of these other four drinks would you choose instead?"

[gardengirl]

Actually no. It would be like asking if you want coffee,and you say
"No thank-you, I don't want anything.
Then they ask
"Do you want tea or milk or juice because you might still have to have something."

[parachute]

Steren and gardengirl, I have posted my thoughts on this issue quite few times but here they are again (and pleased be sure to realize that they are just MY thoughts).

If, for the first question you say “NO – and that means that you would like to keep the name WESTSIDE - fine. That information will be useful to Council.

Now however, let us suppose that the MAJORITY of people have a different view than you do about question 1. The majority do NOT want to keep the name WESTSIDE. So now Council would like to know what name do you (and in particular, ALL of us) want.

To this end, Council would still like to know what you (i.e., the person who wanted to keep Westside) would choose as a name since you can NOT have your druthers regarding the name Westside. Therefore Council wants to know how you would vote in Question 2.

Why is it so hard to realize that just because someone would like Westside and tells Council their wishes in that regard ------ that person should NOT be PREVENTED from expressing an opinion about the other 4 names on the questionnaire?

[gardengirl]

That just makes the point the Steren was saying. Those people in effect, get a second choice.
So then, why did they not ask the voters to list the names in order of preference?
That way EVERYONE would get a first and second choice.

[parachute]

Those people in effect, get a second choice.

Not really correct to imply that ONLY those people get a second choice. If the idea of sticking with Westside gets a majority then the second question will not even be counted. Also the people who vote to dismiss Westside will certainly have their vote on Question 1 counted so they already have one vote and if Westside IS dismissed then they get a second vote. Therefore everyone has a second choice.

So then, why did they not ask the voters to list the names in order of preference?
That way EVERYONE would get a first and second choice.

The “order of preference” idea is the absolute best approach to this question (my view) and would have been desired by almost everyone HOWEVER the municipality can not conduct a preferential voting ballot for some reason.

[Bestside]

• The fact is besides a very few studious types who get very little support or respect in trying to keep up the Westbank museum there are very few Westbank rednecks who know anything about Westbank history... they have not known their history for 100 years... and just started spouting a story a 100 days ago. Quite sad actually, but not unusual for a bedroom community that always had more to do with their neighbouring big city than their own little Hamlet that they thought they had no reason to care about... Nice to see WFN changing the need to go to the greener grass on the other side by the way. Nice to see more people staying "home".[/b]

What's really sad are all the personal attacks coming from all sides in this debate. Your depiction of Westbank and Westbankers in this post and others is mean-spirited. Not to mention off topic. It's too bad that all posters haven't concentrated on stating the positives of their name choice while politely pointing out the inadequacies of the competition. Personal attacks against people and regions aren't helpful if we really want to bring the community together. Kudos to Jo and the other mods for doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances.

Nice try Urbane... I will add my Kudos to Jo for obvious reasons..

Please dissect my post to make your point Urbane...
Provide examples... IN CONTEXT please.
Such as what I was responding to... perfectly within context..

Perhaps there is another thread where you can make your off-topic personal attacks without cluttering up this thread?

And please take note of my following post regarding your post, your quotes...

[Bestside]

by Bestside on Nov 11, 2008, 2:38 am
Are there really people who cannot get their head around
a council directive to choose names that are not divisive for an opinion poll to guide council,
as opposed to designing a ballot for a first past the post to provide a directive to council?
Is there a difference? :127:

What the Naming Committee did was create a perfect scenario for a two name run-off,
find the most popular first past the post current community name;
find the most popular first past the post new name;
then if appropriate go head-to-head, one existing community name vs. one brand new name.

But then, when a two name run-off such as Westbank vs. Okanagan Hills was suggested,
those people wanting a two name run-off went silent, put their head in the sand.

What they wanted was a divisive two name run-off between Westbank vs. West Kelowna,
with the odds stacked in favour of Westbank.
And that is what they got, a method to split the vote in favour of Westbank and at the same time
eliminate any support for a new name that could upset Westbank in a one-on-one run off.

So, where people once had trust in council to do what they said they planned to do with an opinion poll,
those people are now distrustful of council and put under a very different voting procedure:
1. a manipulated connived procedure to deprive them of a new name option ... and
2. a split-vote procedure to usher in the choice of Westbank for one segment of the municipality.
Both an odious affront to transparency and inclusiveness.

Of course the people who have been deprived of a trustful council to do the right thing,
now want assurance of a clear majority for a name. A run-off if necessary.
Now they are derided for wantng a run-off by those who think that their choice will be first past the post because of the manipulation.
It is amazing how people can support the change in council direction without gagging.

by Urbane on Nov 11th, 2008, 8:42 am
I assume you're not writing all of this with a straight face. You talk about the run-off option that would have been perfect with the naming committee ballot but neglect to mention that the naming committee rejected the run-off proposal. REJECTED. The chair of the committee never even formally proposed the run-off because it was rejected out of hand. You also neglect to mention the fact that the chair now acknowledges that the committee "never even came close" to seeing a new name that had considerable support and he himself now supports West Kelowna. You say you mistrust council but you would have trusted them to name our community?? If you think they made the wrong decision on the ballot how can you be so sure they would have made the correct decision on naming our community?? How convenient to keep thrashing council for the fact that people never got excited about a new name. Forcing a new name down the throat of the public while rejecting the two most popular names and expecting unity is pure fantasy. Thrash away but you're missing the target. It's the the people who have never wanted a new name so blame them (us).

Aside to cpt64 - thanks for the compliments on the correctness and applicability of my post.

Urbane, I will address the points in your post and invite you to do likewise with my original post.

I assume you're not writing all of this with a straight face.

Urbane, in addition to your proving my point, are you saying I am not telling the truth?
Its with a sad face Urbane. The misleading information that is being portrayed by a very few, to be used to influence people who rely on others for straight and truthful information, does not bode well for the future of our municipality. Hopefully someday they will be ashamed of their roll in the municipal naming process.

You talk about the run-off option that would have been perfect with the naming committee ballot but neglect to mention that the naming committee rejected the run-off proposal. REJECTED. The chair of the committee never even formally proposed the run-off because it was rejected out of hand.

At no time did the Naming Committee have the mandate or authority to dictate to the elected council how council would be required to take the results of the opinion poll and determine what municipal name would be chosen. Council was very clear that decision was theirs to make.
If the Westbank group is trying to portray that the Naming Committee had the mandate to tell council how to measure the results of the naming opinion poll, no one should believe it. That's a completely misleading comment..

You also neglect to mention the fact that the chair now acknowledges that the committee "never even came close" to seeing a new name that had considerable support and he himself now supports West Kelowna.

It eludes me how people can sit over breakfast or at their keyboard, and profess to know what every other person who is sitting having breakfast is thinking about name choices. If in fact those other people have even heard of the name choices that had not yet been presented to, vetted by, or approved by council. It eludes me even more how anyone can make such a claim aud nauseum over a period of many months prior to the Naming Committee even beginning to reduce the hundreds of name submissions to a handful.
Of course the chair is on record that he now favours West Kelowna because of the format of the ballot foisted upon the Westside electorate, not because of absence of support for a new name.
If the Westbank group is trying to portray that council's handling of the ballot was not the reason for the Chair of the Naming Committee now supporting "West Kelowna" for the name, no one should believe it.

You say you mistrust council but you would have trusted them to name our community??

If you think they made the wrong decision on the ballot how can you be so sure they would have made the correct decision on naming our community?? How convenient to keep thrashing council for the fact that people never got excited about a new name.

That's an oxymoron. Westsiders had a trust in council or people like those on the Naming Committee would never have subjected themselves to thousands of hours of work to do council's bidding.
Of course if was only after council brought out the long knives and thrust them into the hearts of the Naming Committee that they showed their true colors that they can't be trusted.
And again you say it was lack of interest in any new name that was the reason for councils decision to change the ballot. Council is on record that they changed the ballot because they thought the Naming Committee ballot was to confusing.
If the Westbank group is trying to portray that council's changing the ballot was because there was no interest in a new name, no one should believe it because it is without question not true.

Forcing a new name down the throat of the public while rejecting the two most popular names and expecting unity is pure fantasy.

There is no basis for that comment. The procedure of the Naming Committee ballot included both current community names and new names. There was no possible way it could be construed as forcing any particular name down the throats of the public.
If the Westbank group is trying to portray that council's changing the ballot was to add Westbank and West Kelowna to the ballot, no one should believe it because it is without question not true. Both those names and five new names were on the Naming Committee ballot.

Thrash away but you're missing the target. It's the the people who have never wanted a new name so blame them (us).

I take it your "missing the target" reference is you don't want council to be blamed for changing the ballot, and it is your Westbank group who should be blamed. The new name issue was not the driving force to change the ballot, it was collateral damage from getting a ballot that would split the vote and favour Westbank. I don't agree that the Westbank group should be blamed. Council had the final authority to do what was right and they dropped the ball.
Council should not have caved in to intimidation.

[steren]

I guess I am not the only one who is confused about having to vote for the four names even if you say no th change the name "District of Westside.
This conversation is on the other thread.

sellpro 46 wrote:
cpt64 wrote:
Peter, you are correct. What a mess and we all know who's responsible. However, let me correct you on one point. Regardless of how we vote in Question 1, all our votes count in Question 2. I confirmed this when I voted earlier this week. And if anyone, including yourself or whomever gets elected tries to cancel my vote in Question 2, there will be to pay. Again, we all know who we have to blame for this, don't we?

Sellpro---( Peter Haslock) -But to clarify; If you vote no in question 1, you don't get a choice in question 2, do you?

That would make no sense to me as you will have already voted for your name choice by saying no.

cpt64 wrote--Yes, you do and I did and I'll bet a lot of others will too. Again, you can blame Findlater and Co.Welcome to the District of Lake Okanagan.

[mac1]

any name change is going to cost money, give your head a shake

[Urbane]

Bestside:

I agree with a couple of your points. Council made the final decision on the ballot and I'm glad you don't blame "the Westbank grouup" (?) for that. And yes, one can't profess to know what others are always thinking about the names. Someone on here has said that I was always in favour of Westbank,for example, even while I was considering many other names. He professed to know this. Go figure.

Where did I say that the naming committee had the right to dictate anything to council? I've said just the opposite. The key word here is recommendation Bestside. The chair thought the idea of a run-off was a good one and was interested in including that as a recommendation. The committee wouldn't go along with it. The committee did make a ballot recommendation and it was changed by council. Perhaps if the run-off idea was in there it might have been approved. We'll never know. The committee recommended and council made the final decisions - recommend and not dictate.

As for forcing a new name down the throat of the community and expecting unity, that is not fantasy because many people thought that was exactly what was happening. Many were motivated to action when it first appeared that Westbank and West Kelowna would not be on the ballot. I guess you've forgotten the media reports. When it appeared the names would be segregated and treated differently than the other names many felt that was an attempt to manipulate the result. That is not the road to unity.

You know what though Bestside? T. Rawlin was right. The horse is dead. We could argue about this for the next 100 years and be no further ahead. People will vote and the votes will be counted. Let's all accept the result and move on. No more comments from me until after the vote.

[glenny51]

What is a Town?

I recently came across a poem printed in the Westbank Chamber Newsletter, way back in May 1991.
I knew that I had kept it for a good reason, and it now seems like a very appropriate opportunity for all of us who are going to the polls , to put a few things in perspective.
The Chamber has long been the pulse of our business community and has tirelessly promoted the Tourism Industry in our fare town. My hat goes off to the Chamber and their members, and also to all those who have followed their convictions to allow their name to be on the ballot for town Council. Please get out and vote.

“What is a Town?”

My town is the place where my home is found, where my business is situated and where my vote is cast. It is where my children and grandchildren are educated, where my neighbours dwell, and where my life is chiefly lived. It is the home spot for me.
My town has the right to my civic loyalty. It supports me and I should support it.
My town wants my citizenship, not my partisanship; my friendliness, not my dissension; my constructive suggestions, but not my destructive criticism; my intelligence, not my indifference
My town supplies me protection, trade, friends, education, churches, schools and the right to free moral citizenship. It has some things that are better than others, the best I should seek to make better; the worse things I should help to improve. Take it all-in-all, it is my town and it is entitled to the best that there is in me. Author Unknown

Glennis MacDonald
A Life Long Member of Westbank

[brightstar]

Welcome Change

== by Gina Whitacre ==

Change is inevitable,
But yet we fight it, just the same.

Change is essential to our evolution.

Change is going to happen,
In fact, it happens every day,
Maybe it is too small to see, or perhaps we would rather not see it.

We fight change, because we fight the unknown,
We fight the unknown, because we are scared,
Scared of change, scared of the unknown.

If we were to allow change to happen freely,
We might find solutions to the problems that exist around us,
But instead, we are hung - up on controlling everything around us.

I held my breath; I stepped outside and let the change begin.
I took a step and with new strength I’d never felt before,
I kissed my comfort zone goodbye and closed and locked the door.

[brightstar]

Conservative in their ways and in their thinking they do not embrace change in any way
They fear change as a threat to their existence as conservative through their lives they do stay
They resist change as if change is quite harmful as things were they wish them to remain
Their flawed values of rank and class distinction are things that they do fight hard to retain
Conservative people change not known to welcome on any change they like to have their say
They crave respect for their old ways of thinking whilst respect to those who want change they don't pay
No thanks to them that changes are occuring since they want to keep us tied to the past
They cannot accept that time brings with it changes that nothing as it was does seem to last,
Conservative people always in abundance their type never have been known to be rare
They live in Villages, Towns and in Cities you can meet their kind of person anywhere
To them change is something that should be resisted to the old ways with reverence they do cling
They fear change as much as they do fear the reaper as if indeed change were a dangerous thing
Suppose it takes all kinds to make up humanity and conservative people will always fight change
They look on people who to them are different as those who are untrustworthy and strange.

Francis Duggan

[angusog]

Is that the Francis Duggan of Wonthaggi, Victoria, Australia who desperately wanted to change the name of his hometown? Those in Wonthaggi Heights probably agreed with him! :smt023

Westbank for the next 100 years.

The more things change, the more they remain... insane.
Michael Fry and T. Lewis